Quantifying DLOMs for Minority and Controlling Interests
The discount for lack of marketability is one of the largest and most important adjustments made in the valuation of a privately held business. It is crucial to understand that an investor purchases the privately held interest at a discount to increase the rate of return on the investment. This increased rate of return offsets the additional risk the lack of marketability of the investment causes. This webinar will discuss how to use this concept ...
DLOM: A Practical Look at a Complex Matter—Part 1
This webinar will cover the theory behind discounts for lack of marketability. We will cover the applicability and the application of using a DLOM on a minority interest as well as on a controlling interest. We will cover the different models and tools that are available for valuators to use when trying to determine the appropriate DLOM.
Walsh v. Bowers
A district court has ruled “decisively” against the Department of Labor (DOL) in an ESOP valuation case, stressing that the DOL failed to follow standard valuation practices.
District Court Rules ‘Decisively’ Against the DOL in an ESOP Overvaluation Case
The Department of Labor sued the defendants, which included two individual owners, Bowers & Kubota Consulting Inc. and the Bowers & Kubota ESOP, alleging that the defendants had violated ERISA laws by manipulating data to induce the ESOP to pay $40 million for the shares of the individual shareholders that the DOL claimed was in excess of the fair market value of the shares. After extensive testimony of valuation experts and analysis of the facts of the case, the court determined that no ERISA violations have been established.
Appellate court affirms zero DLOM for a 100% control interest
In a divorce matter, an Indiana appellate court has upheld the lower court’s decision not to allow a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) on a 100% control interest in a business the husband owned.
Indiana Supreme Court Issues Key Ruling on Discounts in Compelled Buybacks
Last year, in a compelled buyout, the Court of Appeals sided with the departing minority shareholder when it found discounts did not apply in a closed-market sale. In a freshly minted decision, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding there was no blanket rule disallowing discounts in a compelled buyback. This is especially true where the parties exercised a shareholder agreement whose terms suggested the use of fair market value.
Indiana Supreme Court issues key ruling on discounts in compelled buybacks
Last year, in a compelled buyout, the Court of Appeals sided with the departing minority shareholder when it found discounts did not apply in a closed-market sale.
Global BVU News and Trends January 2021
Business valuation news from a global perspective.
Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Rule Against Discounts in Compulsory, Closed-Market Share Buyback
High court says there is no blanket rule against the use of discounts in a compulsory, closed-market buyback; parties’ freedom to contract right allowed for discounts under shareholder agreement that mandated buyback of plaintiff’s minority interest by company under fair market value standard.
Hartman v. BigInch Fabricators & Construction Holding Co., Inc. (Hartman II)
High court says there is no blanket rule against the use of discounts in a compulsory, closed-market buyback; parties’ freedom to contract right allowed for discounts under shareholder agreement that mandated buyback of plaintiff’s minority interest by company under fair market value standard.
Total Beta—Where Does It Fit in Valuation Theory
The valuation of any company by the discounted cash flow method is divided into two different tasks: forecasting cash flows and discounting these same cash flows using the appropriate discount rate. The latter requires a good understanding of the risks faced by the subject company's cash flows to be able to determine the appropriate risk premia to compensate a typical willing buyer and satisfy a typical willing seller. There is a high level of ambiguity ...
Take Control of Your Premiums
Join BVR for a first look at the new Control Premium Study platform. In the session we will cover the basics of the control premium study, discuss the enhancements to the platform, and provide a walkthrough of how to best utilize the new platform to retrieve control premiums, minority discounts, and multiples.
Nelson v. Commissioner
In gift tax case, Tax Court finds donor transferred percentages in limited liability company rather than fixed dollar amounts based on language in transfer instruments; further, where transferred minority interests include elements of control, minority discount should be reduced, not eliminated.
Court Says Reduced Minority Discount Appropriate Where Minority Interest Has Elements of Control
In gift tax case, Tax Court finds donor transferred percentages in limited liability company rather than fixed dollar amounts based on language in transfer instruments; further, where transferred minority interests include elements of control, minority discount should be reduced, not eliminated.
Discounts inappropriate in valuing minority interest in mandatory buyback, appeals court rules
When a minority shareholder in an Indiana company was terminated as a director and officer, a dispute arose over whether, under a buyback agreement, the use of discounts for lack of control and marketability was permissible in valuing his shares.
In Mandatory Buyback, Indiana Appeals Court Disallows Use of Discounts
In dispute about valuation of terminated shareholder’s minority interest, appeals court finds the trial court erred when it allowed discounts for lack of control and marketability; under controlling case law, discounts are inappropriate where the buyback is mandatory and to the controlling party.
Hartman v. BigInch Fabricators & Construction Holding Co., Inc. (Hartman I)
In dispute about valuation of terminated shareholder’s minority interest, appeals court finds the trial court erred when it allowed discounts for lack of control and marketability; under controlling case law, discounts are inappropriate where the buyback is mandatory and to the controlling party.
Simplified MUM approach weathers attacks in Illinois divorce case
One of the key questions in an Illinois divorce case was how to allocate goodwill between enterprise and personal goodwill.
In re Marriage of Preston
In divorce case, appellate court upholds valuation based on opinion of husband’s expert using MUM method to separate total goodwill value into personal and enterprise components; court also upholds use of small marketability discount where owner spouse is the sole owner of the company.
Court Favors MUM Method for Goodwill Allocation in Illinois Divorce Case
In divorce case, appellate court upholds valuation based on opinion of husband’s expert using MUM method to separate total goodwill value into personal and enterprise components; court also upholds use of small marketability discount where owner spouse is the sole owner of the company.
Courts Find Minority Discount Unwarranted Under Facts of Case
In valuing owner-spouse’s minority interest in LLC, trial court “would have been well within its discretion to apply a minority discount,” appeals court says, but it was not error for trial court to reject a discount based on certain questionable actions related to the owner’s interest.
Cobane v. Cobane
In valuing owner-spouse’s minority interest in LLC, trial court “would have been well within its discretion to apply a minority discount,” appeals court says, but it was not error for trial court to reject a discount based on certain questionable actions related to the owner’s interest.
DCF Projections Failed to Reflect Target’s Operative Reality, Chancery Says
In joint fiduciary-appraisal action centering on Sprint’s acquisition of minority interest in related entity, Chancery says merger was entirely fair and adopts respondent expert’s DCF analysis; huge value gap is 90% due to experts’ choice of projections.
ACP Master, Ltd. v. Sprint Corp.
In joint fiduciary-appraisal action centering on Sprint’s acquisition of minority interest in related entity, Chancery says merger was entirely fair and adopts respondent expert’s DCF analysis; huge value gap is 90% due to experts’ choice of projections.
DCF Projections Failed to Reflect Target’s Operative Reality, Chancery Says
In joint fiduciary-appraisal action centering on Sprint’s acquisition of minority interest in related entity, Chancery says merger was entirely fair and adopts respondent expert’s DCF analysis; huge value gap is 90% due to experts’ choice of projections.